We’ve been quoted $4bn per launch. If this pattern of delays turns out to be fundamental (a big, if plausible, if), what would the launch costs actually be?
…which is why it’s often a good idea to not use a new launch vehicle on the critical path for your crewed spaceflight program. (Could have used LEO rendezvous of various types to go to the Moon.)
https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
> 39. The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule: 1) No new launch vehicles. 2) No new launch vehicles. 3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.
The same is now true of the Starship, which is again being entirely privately funded. The cost is certainly going to be much more than $100 million, but also nowhere near the absurd extremes of cost that Boeing imposes on the taxpayer. At this point "we" have spent tens of billions of dollars on this catastrophe. And the icing on the cake is that if this monstrosity is ever deemed flight worthy, it will likely already be obsolete.
It's quite difficult to understand why giving a company billions of dollars a year, unless they succeed, does not seem to be leading to great outcomes. Maybe we should just give them more money. That'll fix everything.
And just to put things in perspective: SLS (not Orion, just SLS) is projected to cost a total of $30 Billion
The shuttle cost $1.5BN/launch and SLS, forty years later? Over $2BN/launch.
Absolute insanity.
People on here sure are fickle.
Give what you said all of the military is a jobs program also.